From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29971 invoked by alias); 26 Jun 2006 19:00:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 29963 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jun 2006 19:00:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:00:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5QJ0LQY032592 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:00:21 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k5QJ0Lh1015656 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:00:21 -0400 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-21.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.21]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k5QJ0KLp027874 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:00:20 -0400 Received: from ironwood.lan (ironwood.lan [192.168.64.8]) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.10) with ESMTP id k5QJ0KSH015866 for ; Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:00:20 -0700 Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 19:00:00 -0000 From: Kevin Buettner To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Don't kill the program after "file" Message-ID: <20060626120020.020b6482@ironwood.lan> In-Reply-To: References: <20060613205014.GA20822@nevyn.them.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.0.0 (GTK+ 2.6.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:06:40 -0700 Jim Blandy wrote: > > Another thing which just > > occured to me would be to make the file command succeed if you say "n" > > at the query. > > I think something like that is workable. What if we simply left the > killing to the 'kill' and 'run' commands, and let the prompt say: > > A program is being debugged already. > Are you sure you want to change the file? (y or n) > > Saying 'y' would not kill the program. > > This would mean that 'exec-file; run' when a program is running would > ask the user two questions: one to confirm the file change, and then > another to confirm the kill before restarting. Jim's proposal sounds reasonable to me. Kevin